My experience on Ace Combat begs to differ lol

@Eth3realwarrior

2 жыл бұрын

Yeah we used to bullseye MIGs all the time in Beggars Canyon, they aren't much bigger than 30 meters.

@tonyrun5802

2 жыл бұрын

Lmfao yeah

@svthippy

2 жыл бұрын

mobius one , fox 2

@MunchieOverlord

2 жыл бұрын

Beat me to it lol

@thiccchungo1041

2 жыл бұрын

Dog fighting F-117s over the Whiskey Corridor was a strange experience

If I ever would be able to get a military style jet in a civilian format I would definitely go for the f-117, the coolest looking jet I've ever seen

@michaelvickers89

2 жыл бұрын

F-117

@ryanestes7331

2 жыл бұрын

Problem is it's a nightmare to fly

@oppikomusic

2 жыл бұрын

@@ryanestes7331 all the more reason why it was be great to master it

@michaelvickers89

2 жыл бұрын

@@ryanestes7331 You’re right and if one computer fails that 100 million dollar jet is going down…

@kingdomofvinland8827

2 жыл бұрын

F-35A for me.

As a former Dedicated Crew Chief(84-0809 was the last aircraft I was assigned too and I launched it out to be retired on Apr 21, 2008, I've got the challenge coin given to me by the 9th FS Commander to prove it!) on the F-117A for 14 years I can tell you the real reason(s) the F-1117A was classified as fighter and not a attack or bomber aircraft is simple. The video clearly states that the USAF chose to call it a fighter to help attract pilots to the program when it was still highly classified.. That is true. The re was a secondary reason it was not classified as a bomber aircraft was because of the SALT II nuclear arms limitation treaty that had clauses in it that limited the total number of bomber aircraft the US could have in service under the treaty. So if they had chosen to make it a bomber then the US would have had to A: disclose that it had a new "classified" bomber aircraft to the Soviet Union/Russia B: retire/scrap an equal amount of current bombers to keep the total number of bombers at or under the treaty limits. Neither of those two conditions were something the Air Force ever wanted to do.. so that left giving it an A or F designation. To make it more attractive to the highly qualified pilots that were selected for the program they were told that they would be volunteering for a "classified" fighter project. So they chose the F-117 designation, which is in "violation" of the tri-service agreement but the program was so "black world" back in the late 1970's early 80's that no one would know. The history of the aircraft is extremely facinating, albeit a bit muddled thanks to some VERY inaccurate reporters/TV shows/documentaries. If you really want to learn something about the history of the F-117A, do a google search for Ben Rich's book . or visit the F-117A.com website. Edit: For those that are curious as to how and why they are still flying around. Read the stories here www.wpafb.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/400964/f-117a-nighthawk-to-be-honored-at-retirement-ceremony and here www.wpafb.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/400959/stealth-fighter-honored-at-wright-patt towards the end of the articles you will see where the F-117A were placed in "recallable storage" at Tonapah. The second article also states the condition of how we left some of the aircraft with the wings removed while in storage. How many I can not state, but I can say that the aircraft tail numbers I have seen flying are ones that we did not disassemble for storage. Mystery solved. Oh for further reading from an VERY influential F-117A pilot and just a plain ass cool guy. read this article on the AF.mil website. www.af.mil/News/Features/Display/Article/143324/nighthawk-pilots-reflect-on-f-117s-legacy/ thanks and enjoy

@sidv4615

2 жыл бұрын

thanks for the answer sir. Really cleared up that topic. For years I wondered why it was called the "F"-117 even though it couldn’t carry any forward firing weapons. also thanks for your service man. had a few lil questions if you don't mind. 1.)What do you know about the 1986 F-117 Crash where the military replaced the Nighthawk parts with F-101 parts to hide the fact that a new stealth "fighter" had crashed. 2.)does the 117 carry any radar detection equipment or RWR? 3.)i remember reading somewhere that The radar-absorbent flat sheets covering the F-117 were held in place by glue, with the gaps between the sheets filled with a kind of putty material. what was that material(putty)? i think people called it butter. 4.)Also was there any case where the glue couldn’t hold the panel and you found it missing after the flight. 5.)did you know the nighthawk pilot who was shot down during Allied force, i believe he flew 82-0806. did you ever work on that jet or see it? 6.) So when the night hawk was shot down why wasn't it destroyed? Was the Technology so outdated by then that it wasn't considered important to protect. 7.)IF The instability of the F-16 is largely “why”it’s such an amazing dog fighter, wouldnt the same be true of the f117? 8.)Why couldn’t it dogfight? i remember reading somewhere that it could pull 7Gs, is that true? hope i didnt ask you anything that's still classified.

@MotorcycleWrites

2 жыл бұрын

Ben Rich’s book on the topic (“skunk works”) is actually a really good read, and that’s coming from someone who has very little interest in the military industrial complex. It has some fun biographic stories of Kelly Johnson and a lot of insight into the inner workings of one of the most insanely funded and interesting team of engineers on the planet. Definitely worth it if you have any interest in the development of the U2, f-117, or a-12/sr-71. Thanks for all the info in your comment, always nice to see people posting sources for further reading.

@JohnDoe-pv2iu

2 жыл бұрын

Great Job on the explanation and your work!

@intorsusvolo7834

2 жыл бұрын

I wonder if the first pilots were disappointed or not that it wasn’t a fighter.

@That_Stealth_Guy

2 жыл бұрын

@Balkan Kneecap thief Stealth does not equal invisible on radar.

It didn't need conventional guns or missiles to earn the F for Fighter. It probably had alien ray guns which were copied from the flying saucers stored in Area 51. Yes, I'm joking.

@Eth3realwarrior

2 жыл бұрын

Or are you?...

@ddegn

2 жыл бұрын

@@Eth3realwarrior Yes I'm joking. The flying saucers aren't stored in Area 51. They're stored in Area 42.

@Will-dn9dq

2 жыл бұрын

Got the fighter name cause no fighter pilots wanted fly a bomber.

@FirstDagger

2 жыл бұрын

@@ddegn ; Do you mean Plant 42? Because Area code 42 encompasses cities like Eureka, NV. Site S4 would still be part of Area code 51 and is where Lazar claims the UFO hangar to have been.

@tupolev.designs

2 жыл бұрын

@@ddegn I’m area 42? More like in area 69

Weird. A lot of books on military aircraft I owned as a kid claimed that the Nighthawk COULD carry Sidewinders and even gun pods in the weapon bays. I wonder if the FLIR’s could act as an IRST system…

@jayjay53313

2 жыл бұрын

Gunpod is impossible. Only 4x AIM-9 as depicted in the movie Interceptor and The Invader. The F-117 could maneuver at 6.5G, you could defeat Mig-21, Mig-23, Tornado F3/ADV

@baremetalmafia

2 жыл бұрын

Inside visual range the radar cross section is less important and any radars looking at the engagement would likely see the non stealth planes as a merge teach with the f117 anyway. At that point the Aim9 could just be slipstreamed and the seeker used as an IRST before launch.

@memyselfandi6364

2 жыл бұрын

Yes, the F-117 has 2 IR systems, one that looks down and one that looks forward.

@LostParadise_

2 жыл бұрын

I wouldn't be surprised if it could. It makes sense to have any aircraft these days to hold a variety of ordinance, since no two missions are the same.

@GhostofReason

Жыл бұрын

Yep, I distinctly remember as a kid that it was conventional wisdom amongst me and my school mates that this plane had a single machine gun that it could use but never did and that it regularly carried Sidewinder Missiles

I imagine the F117s flying with the F15s for training could also be training the F15 pilots on spotting and engaging stealth aircraft that adversaries may deploy. If that’s the case, it may show that the military only thinks that the stealth capabilities of other countries may be around that of the F117.

@fokjohnpainkiller

2 жыл бұрын

Or it's just cheaper to operate than an F-35 and ticks the "stealth jet" box

@JosephHHHo

2 жыл бұрын

Not just cheaper, but there is probably a ton more data available on what the F117 real world radar signiture is like compared to the F35.

@fokjohnpainkiller

2 жыл бұрын

@@JosephHHHo No way. The AF has all the data it needs. I'm sure there are other arguments to be made but this doesn't seem like one of them.

@jeffbenton6183

Жыл бұрын

Later in the video he said that it was for practicing tactics to detect and shoot down cruise missiles, which seems more plausible to me.

I commanded the F-117A Nighthawk on the Sega Mega Drive platform in the early 1990's, achieving an exceptional number of air-to-air victories against eastern-bloc fast jets, primarily employing the AIM-9P, which could be carried internally or mounted upon underwing pylons.

Despite not having air to air capabilities...this was and still is one of the absolutely coolest looking jets of this Era.

@jeffbenton6183

Жыл бұрын

I love the nickname that the Brits* gave it: "Hope-less Diamond" *I think it was British aviators who gave it that name.

@rgloria40

7 ай бұрын

Smartphones are much as powerful as big mainframe computer back then...why not a advance optical targeting system. Webcam are really small and light. PS..Can it carry a laser?

Those of us who grew up playing the 1991 PC game "F-117A Nighthawk Stealth Fighter 2.0" have known that the aircraft can dogfight and win for the last 30 years 😃👍

@shaunfoo2332

2 жыл бұрын

Absolutely! They should have mass produced the Microprose F117s rather than the F35. With 4 weapon bays, a gun and EACH bay being able to carry THREE amraams or FOUR sidewinders, PLUS all the air to ground weapons (INCLUDING AGM84 HARPOONS) China wouldn't dare mess around in the South China Sea today.

@JTMarlin8

2 жыл бұрын

The F-117 was made for old PC games. Its wireframe geometry is nothing but a handful of straight lines. 😆

@brianspohn5982

8 ай бұрын

i had sega genesis and game boy . no computer 😥

I mean…. if carrying side winders makes you a fighter jet…. shouldn’t the A-10 be the F-10? (Not to be confused with the Douglas Skynight.) My point is A-10 is ten times the fighter jet than F-117.

@galadato7425

2 жыл бұрын

A10 is like when the harrier or ah1z with Sidewinders, all will never be sent to an area without air superiority

@stephenfritz7493

2 жыл бұрын

The F-117N would have been amazing...

@kinneticsand5787

2 жыл бұрын

@@stephenfritz7493 Agreed, but they really risked it being like the 35 in terms of cost.

@BengalLancer

2 жыл бұрын

@@galadato7425 "Harriers will never be sent in an area with air superiority." Argentines had some degree of air superiority earlier in the Falklands. And much higher the number. Yet harriers got the day.

@JohnDoe-pv2iu

2 жыл бұрын

Actually the A10 with that gun, the 2 sidewinders and it's maneuvering would be a hell of a 'Hornets nest' for a average fighter pilot to mess with!

Great video. Nice to see the Fresno F15s get some love. I worked there when they first converted the unit from the F16.

@bryanpelayo1382

2 жыл бұрын

Yeah we get little love lol

@zeblanmaidaynovich796

2 жыл бұрын

After humiliation back in the 90s in Kosovo when f117 was blown up in the sky after meeting with the oldest but best in the world SAM System built-in USSR... it cant survive nothing just simply one of the fancy junks that USA produce for fake special effect movies always and only LOL 😂😃😆 learn some history mamas basement-noobs lol

The use of Sidewinders against high value air assets of the soviets would have been possible and would also make a lot of sense. Just because there are no pictures or documentation in the public about a BLACK PROJECT, does not mean that it did not happen. I rather guess that Maj. Donaldson talked about a topic on the FPP about which he should not have talked about in public.

I think this airframe has always had far more potential than it's been developed to. but we need the F-117 to get the B-2 and every other stealth airframe we have to date.

@weirdguy564

2 жыл бұрын

That is speculation. As far as I know the F-117 is retired because it just isn't that good of a flying machine. The landing speeds are super high, as is the maintenance per flight hour. Hell, I've even heard that the F-22 has better stealth numbers than the old Wobblin Goblin (an unfair nickname, it flies just fine). Then again, anything related to stealth is classified and mostly conjecture. I don't know what to say when I hear rumors that the F-23 Black Widow actually did go into a small production run as an enlarged, 2 seat bomber/recon stealth plane to replace the SR-71, and also explains why the USAF only bought 200 F-22's and insane prices. We also supposedly have a bunch of stealthy fighter/bomber/recon planes based on its rival F-23 to make up the difference, but we don't talk about them, and paid for them with the "cost over runs" from the F-22 program. We may actually have 300 or 400 stealth fighters and fighter bombers.

@isodoublet

2 жыл бұрын

@@weirdguy564 "As far as I know the F-117 is retired" Well, sort of :)

I don't think it was an attack aircraft either. Attack aircraft typically carry air to ground missiles and a cannon for strafing. The F-117 had neither, it could only carry 2 bombs, so it was at best, a light bomber.

@hphp31416

2 жыл бұрын

light bombers are what we call attack aircrafts, a10 is exception, most are closer to bombers like su24

@thuggeegaming659

2 жыл бұрын

@@hphp31416 A10 is not an exception. There are basically only 3 dedicated attack aircraft in the entire world, and they all use guns, cannons, and missiles primarily.

@Barabel22

2 жыл бұрын

It’s a first in strike aircraft(like the F-111/F-15E), not attack/CAS.

@LostParadise_

2 жыл бұрын

Username John Smith, a little above this comment for me, would probably agree. He was a crew chief and assigned to these planes. The reason why it was given an F designation was because of a treaty that limited the amount of bombers in a single nation's arsenal (SALT II Nuclear Arms Treaty.) The choices were to name it B-117, disclose the "classified" bomber to the Soviets, or dispose of an appropriate amount of bombers currently in use to get around the treaty, or designate it using A or F... F was used to attract highly qualified pilots. This information was adapted from his comment posted 2 days ago.

@jayshmoney795

2 жыл бұрын

Vary good point, I also thought the same thing, years go when desert storm was happening 👍

I love the fact they are flying these again, more and more since retirement. I think they still have a lot to offer if they had an upgrade.

@tonyrun5802

2 жыл бұрын

Chance not given to the Tomcat, am sad now

@epicspaces9434

2 жыл бұрын

@@tonyrun5802 the Tomcat is so heavy and horrible for dogfights, it can pull only 7Gs

@tonyrun5802

2 жыл бұрын

@@epicspaces9434 the fact that you say it's terrible for dogfights because it can only pull 7Gs shows you know very little about aviation. It's not just the Gs you can pull, it's also reaching the perfect rate speeds and also managing to get the best solution before getting into the turning fight. Growling Sidewinder makes a perfect job of showing the Tomcat's capabilities in DCS. Also, heavy fighters don't mean inagility. The F-15 for example is another heavy fighter, which is great overall. Same goes for the Su-27 family Edit: you really think the F-117 would do better than the Tomcat in A2A engagements???

@epicspaces9434

2 жыл бұрын

@@tonyrun5802 First I love the tomcat, but against an F-117 I doubt it(if F-117 got guns and missiles), by the way the F 15 is an air superiority Fighter with 9G+ and thrust to weight ratio greater than 1. I'm not a pilot, true I know very little about aviation.

@tonyrun5802

2 жыл бұрын

@@epicspaces9434 tbh, the Nighthawk needed multiple computers to make it able to fly steadily. The shape of that airplane might seem like it is, but it's far from aerodynamic. It's very friendly to stealth purposes tho, because its surface reflected radar waves away from the craft in a direction different from the radar position

You are taking the F-117 kill out of context, they flew the same route night and night again. That is why the enterprising missile unit commander Zoltán Dani was able to shoot it down. Also AIM is pronounced like the English language word aim, not a-i-m. The real reason it is called F-117 is because the century series designations (F-110 Spectre (became the F-4 Phantom II) and F-111 Aardvark (F because initially designed as a fighter) being the last) were discontinued at the time and thus an F-117 would not attract attention from Soviet Intel. The research in this video is a bit subpar to be honest.

@MyLonewolf25

2 жыл бұрын

Thank you

@chaps7976

2 жыл бұрын

Can't agree more, with everything said for. I cannot say how disgusted i was with that pronunciation a-i-m. Something i would like to point out is the fact that F-117 could probably carry anti-radar missile systems to shoot down AWACS aircraft but i do not know how that works in particular or if there are any missiles that are capable in that capacity.

@FirstDagger

2 жыл бұрын

@@chaps7976 ; There are rumor that it could possibly have mounted external launcher rails for AIM-9s. However the base F-117 we know would not have been capable of that, also all ARMs in inventory require a launch rail, and would defeat the whole Stealth purpose. Which is why F-22 and F-35 have no ARMs. The only new weapon previously unknown for the F-117 that was confirmed by photos was a JDAM.

@xyzaero9656

2 жыл бұрын

@@chaps7976 I honestly think that the F-117 had a Sidewinder capability. Very easy to integrate and use.

@xyzaero9656

2 жыл бұрын

@@FirstDagger You can launch a Sidewinder from the internal bay. Raptor does it and F-117 would have been a prime candidate to do so. I am not saying that it did happen, but what do we know about Black Projects ? NOTHING.

To maintain its stealth it can't transmit any radio signals so no communications out or active radar is available. However recieving radio communications as well as using passive radar devices can be used so a F117 could be guided to a target by ground stations or use the enemy's radar and radio communications to locate them. Seems that a bit of understanding and research is lacking with this video that said it was somewhat informative all the same.

@alexanderw.648

2 жыл бұрын

Good points. I think what was also misunderstood by the creator of the video is that you would not need to dogfight an A.W.A.C. and that getting close to one would also not require supersonic speed.

Actual Pilots: the F117 cannot dogfight Ace Combat fans: HOLD MY SANDWICH

@thepsychoticone615

2 жыл бұрын

HOLD MY FIGHTER

i was 9 years old when f-117 was on tv in desert storm . my younger brother who was born in 1994 , scoffed and lauged at the f-117 . in 1990 it was incredible . its lines are still cool . skunkworks are incapable of making bad planes .

I had no idea Sandbox had a youtube channel I love this company they make it so easy to communicate with my brother

The real question is whether it could WIN in a dogfight; Anything could fight just not win

I'd guess that the Nighthawk could win a dogfight in the way a 3yo kid can beat up their dad. Only if the dad is letting them win by pretending to lose so the toddler doesn't throw a hissy fit.

the f15ex is considered 5 1/2 generation because of its advanced radar technology. even tho the f22 has a smaller radar signature, those planes are still active duty and are incredibly expensive to operate. the f117 however isn't doing anything right now, had has the same radar defensive capabilities. the training dogfights are to simulate and tests the ex's radar locking abilities.

I live in Fresno and i remember I saw the two f-117s and a couple of f-15s maybe like around 5 or so fly over my school, it was a dream come true i swear to God.

Don’t forget E for Electrics. Like the F/E 18 Hornet or the E-2C and E-2DGreyhawk

hey sandboxx can you plz do a comapsion on how we would fight a gamllion invasion from space battleship yamto in modern day era for air,navy,army etc

It actually has a radar system but its a passive system that is used to detect enemy craft. It wasn't designed as a dog fighter. There is a difference between passive and active radar. This was added on later on through updates to the crafts electronics over its life time. Active radar is used to guide radar guided missies.

It’s not for cruise missile practice. Their practicing against stealth aircraft.

@LostParadise_

2 жыл бұрын

Another two comments said that this is plausible; it's cheaper to use than an F-35 and the F-117 has more "real world" data to understand and use in training.

@logicplague2077

2 жыл бұрын

@@LostParadise_ I'd say the F-117's stealth is as good as or better than an Su-57 or a J-20, so it's probably good practice.

Great video! But I really want to know is why the F-117 has a century series nomenclature?

I remember the video game on nes stealth atf. I was doing what maverick was doing on topgun to beat the game. I hated trying to land on a carriers lol. Crazy I'm posting in b95 right now too

The F-117N was also offered to the UK RAF as the F-117K.

My AC2 experiences tell me that they can, so I will stand by it and if ever given the chance, will test it myself.

The visibility could be remedied using augmented reality software in the pilot's helmet system. We know that that's starting to become a reality for our airforce, allowing the pilot to essentially see through their aircraft. The Pentagon may have already had a form of that while the F117 was still in active service, they just kept it classified.

*IF* the F-117 was certified to carry AIM-9s, then it certainly could shoot at other aircraft including an AWACS. It’s not uncommon to design a product with future capabilities in mind so that they could be quickly adapted to a new requirement. If you have an actual F-117 pilot saying that this was part of the F-117’s capabilities then there is no reason to disbelieve it. Also, F-117 targets were likely pre-planed. Going after an AWACS would be similarly planned. ie the pilot would have been told to go to a certain area where Soviet AWACS are operating. Once in the area it could briefly listen to radio updates on the location of the target. An AWACS is a huge aircraft flying very predictable routes while emitting thousands of watts of RF energy. The F-117 radar warning receiver(RWR) would be one way to find the AWACS beyond visual range. It would only take seconds to fire AIM-9s are the unsuspecting AWACS. After that the F-117 could slip away undetected… just like it did to ground targets. It’s as simple as fly at this altitude, to this location, once there use the RWR to get a bearing, and then close on and kill the AWACS.

@stuntpuppy8557

2 жыл бұрын

Problem is the F-117 never had a radar warning receiver. The flip-down Radar Locator System was planned but it compromised stealth when in use, so it never made it on to the production aircraft. The pilot has no way of locating this aircraft other than visually, at night, out of a cockpit that had notoriously bad visibility. It also had no in cockpit indication of lock for the sidewinders, so even if he found it, he'd have had to point his nose at the aircraft and pray that the seeker head had lock.

@Truthbomb918

2 жыл бұрын

Awacs are always far from the battle, f117 didn't have great range and sidewinders need to have the seeker outside in order to track targets which would make the aircraft visible to radar

@darthamerica9119

2 жыл бұрын

@@Truthbomb918 not as far away as most people think. They have to be able to see deep enough into the battlespace to be effective and to look down and detect things like cruise missiles. An F-117 could reach any AWACS near the FLOT. For others it would just target them on the ground between sorties.

@Truthbomb918

2 жыл бұрын

@@darthamerica9119 Awacs radar range is hundreds of miles and they always have fighters flying air patrols too. Plus the f117 wouldn't be capable of shooting down an Awacs if it was able to stay undetected. Closer to the Awacs the more chance it would be seen, the f117 like all stealth aircraft are not invisible to radar they have low radar signatures. The nighthawk almost always flew with radar jamming aircraft

@darthamerica9119

2 жыл бұрын

@@Truthbomb918 AWACS radar range is limited by the curvature of the Earth, Tx power and the RCS of the target. It is possible to surprise them with the right tactics. The F-117 being more difficult to detect and track could slip through gaps in coverage and position itself to make an attack. Even if the attack fails to hit or destroy the AWACS, just the attempt could cause the AWACS to move out of position or even abort it’s mission. These are high value low density assets and they would not just keep calmly flying race tracks during and after an attack. That could open a window of opportunity.

I believe it's not difficult to solve those problems that he mentioned by installation of passive devices devices like IRST.

The F-117 Nighthawk may not have been able to dogfight but I read that the F-117 Seahawk or F-117B had that capability.

They could also be using them to train pilots for tactics on engaging stealth aircraft.

what is the backround song called tho?? i need answers

Problem with carrying air to air like the Sidewinder is would it would need to be on some sort of trapeze to get the seeker head out of the weapons bay.

@hoghogwild

2 жыл бұрын

lock on after launch.

@3.10 That explanation is maybe half the story. At Lockheed and the Pentagon, they were very concerned about espionage. The F 117 , at least in part, got it's designation because if any information about it's development was compromised they wanted to conceal the plan of a Stealth Attack plane. The powers thought it would be better if a potential enemy thought it to be a fighter and not an aircraft that could attack through their air defenses. I still have to explain to people that it IS NOT a fighter because they blindly think F means fighter... Ya'll Take Care and be safe, John

@JohnDoe-pv2iu

2 жыл бұрын

BTW, It never was a bomber. It was an Attack plane like an A4 Skyhawk really. It was similar to other Attack aircraft but never like a fighter or bomber... I mention the A4 Skyhawks because they too were small sub-sonic planes that had a minimal cross section and a light payload. Ya'll Take Care, John

i was able to use the f-117 in ace combat pretty good both in air to ground and air to air missions

The nighthawk was one of the reasons why i wanted to become an air force pilot. its not a bad design as they looked at peregrine falcon in flight to get the stealthy shape

@sidv4615

2 жыл бұрын

are you one now?

@redschafer7804

2 жыл бұрын

@@sidv4615 sadly no you have to have perfect 20/20 vision and i don't have it so i get to admire the ones who can

@sidv4615

2 жыл бұрын

@@redschafer7804 what arr you talking about mate? I know tens of pilots in the USAF who had glasses before they joined the Air Force. The USAF even allows people with LASIK (Laser eye surgery) to become officers and fly planes.

@redschafer7804

2 жыл бұрын

@@sidv4615 they didn't when i was kid in the 80's and thats what i was told by many a recruiter when i asked i have really bad near slightness i mean i have to have something right up on my nose to be able to see it with out my glasses. so i don't know? i'm in my 40's now i might be a bit too old to join.

The F117 can, theoretically, eqip AIM-9 Sidewinders. So technically, it can fight enemy aircraft. It's just sub parr at it.

I'd imagine that gun pods that extend upon opening the bombay doors could be engineered- but I'm no engineer, just throwing an idea at a wall. Still heavily disadvantaged, either way.

I see another problem. For an AIM-9 sidewinder to work it has to be carried externally. As you'll lock on to targets with the actual seeker head of the missile. Carrying internal the seeker head will be obstructed.

@Perkinator104

9 ай бұрын

Could it just be shoved out the bottom and lock on mid-air? Hopefully...

My favorite aircraft. I love the desgin of it.

Alex, if you ever see this I would LOVE to see a video about how it's possible that the F117 supposedly owes much of it's stealth to it's straight/angular lines, but every other stealth aircraft (F22, F35, B2, B21) do everything they can to avoid them. I know RAM coatings came a long way which explains a lot of it and it "allows" newer aircraft to be more aerodynamic, (and there's other factors too), but how can it be that such an angular airframe was stealthy at all if the goal is to prevent straight lines?

I don’t know if there is a radar in the front in the nose, I think there is a targeting IR or laser it was subsequently installed in favor for the laser targeting for the bombing

It’s pretty obvious why there were F-117’s seen flying with F-15’s. They’re training and getting used to the specific radar returns, if any, typical of stealth aircraft. The newer radars are probably more sensitive to smaller returns then the radars that existed when the Nighthawk was developed and deployed. Having said that, the F-117 was never designed for air to air combat, nor was it ever considered for such.

Videogame called Tom Clancy's H.A.W.X. lets the player to dogfight enemy fighters in a F-117 with air-to-air missiles and a autogun. XD

The second i saw the title i was like “not these again, i already saw the F22 on a carrier video”

Is the F-117 that was shot down done so through intel? I know stories fly. But I’ve heard the enemy learned when and where they took off regularly and was able to shoot one down that way. Anyone who knows, and can share, please do. Love these stories! Thanks for a great video!

@sidv4615

2 жыл бұрын

That was pretty much what happened, the Yugoslavs had spies near the airbase where that plane flew from who informed them of the timings, mission duration etc.

1:38 Checking pressure? He love his Plane ^^

Ive now seen 4 different photographic evidence from California to utah on 4 different days with different aircraft the F-117 flying , taking off or landing. 2 of those were with 2 117’s and 4 f-15’s /f-16s . This explains to me a bit more one why it’s suddenly popping up everywhere .

"JB" Brown also acknowledges in late 2022 that there was an official program to turn the F-117 into an AWACS killer from early on and that he has seen pictures of the plane with missiles fitted, but he does not know what happened to the program and that the never flew such a mission with missiles.

Well it's kinda like an F-4 in a way. Just give it sidewinders and it'll work. Probably less manoeuvrable but it does have stealth. Still would be terrible if it only had 2 and without a radar. Actually, if you're only able to fire by sight, the stealth part might not help.

Spitballing here - I wonder if it would have been feasible for the F-117 to carry a couple of sidewinders encased in cheap stealth pods that could be jettisoned as the missile was fired? Yes, I know that there is more to this than just strapping on a missile (uh-huh-huh-huh) and maybe the 117 was never deployed without total air superiority already established, but it would be interesting to know if such a defense could have been added.

Red Storm Rising the steath had AF and was a fighter. F117 was one of the only planes to stay secret.

The tail fins is what bounced off enemy radars not flat enough like the b2

Cool to see them out of storage and flying again

The Serbian shoot down of the F-117 was not just the result of opening the bomb bays for a few seconds. The entire shoot down sequence built up for over one week and was not the result of open doors for a few seconds !!

@VersusARCH

2 жыл бұрын

If only that pilot kept his bomb bay door closed over the target, all would have been fine 😂

@xyzaero9656

2 жыл бұрын

@@VersusARCH LOL

@fixmehanicar

2 жыл бұрын

Turns out cockpit cover was also good as makeshift doghouse in mudy cornfield

Right out of Red Storm Rising, in which we used a secret stealth fighter specifically to kill a Soviet awacs, which you could easily track while quiet by homing in on its radar

That SeaHawk looks awesome!

I'm impressed you stretched this video so far lol

About 30 years ago, there was a couple of low-budget cable/video release only action flicks with F-117A portrayed as stealth "fighter" and ended with two protagonists flying against each other's F-117A. Can't remember titles. Kinda laughable but still enjoyable at the time...

Hey Alex how about the P 38?

This was born a Bomber and was never intended for anything else. They had to designate it a fighter due to an arms limitation treaty with Russia

@sidv4615

2 жыл бұрын

SALT II specifically. glad to see someone know about it

1:40 pre-tripped that plane like a boss

The F-117 had 2 IR systems, one that looked down and one that looks forward, so no.. the only way to spot a target is NOT "only out the window"...

America's Fighting Jets, made by Topic entertainment. Great documentary

Wrong, sort of. The F-117 carried what is known as an RHAWS, or Radar Homing And Warning System. Its basically a radar intercept sensor that detects radar emissions and can identify radar threats from SAMs and opfor aircraft, to incoming missiles that are radar guided. An AWACS radar signature can be picked up well over 100 miles away and roughly can be located through the use of RHAWS without the need of radar....but as soon as you get close to the aircraft, you run the risk of being detected and yeah you would need to keep the Mk 1 eyeball out of the cockpit to see it. But that AWACS is fairly large...and escorted.

It was always my understanding that the nighthawk was a bomber first, and it's F designation was basically to pacify the pilots for whatever reason. It didn't have a dedicated gun or any missile pilons, so the atteck role doesn't fit, but it did have dedicated bombays. Maybe it could've launched missles from it's bombays like a Raptor or Lightening, IDK. It also had non afterburning turbofans that would've certainly put it at a disadvantage. I think a bomber designation would've suited it better, but would've been bad ass as a fighter with burners, missles, and a big ass gun. Non of what I said is factual, just my own personal opinions, and we all know what they're like.😮

I’m glad this thing worked

What is the kc designation?

@Fc3s808

8 ай бұрын

Kerosene Cargo...

If it flew with F35s with, the right electronics it could hook up to the F35 radar etc.

No RADAR, only two 2,000 lb's. For the first time I am thinking that F-117 was an overly simple aircraft. I thought it was a very sophisticated machine. No wonder why USAF retired it so early.

@hoghogwild

2 жыл бұрын

It was a very sophisticated machine. It didn't have RADAR in order to maintain its LO capability. Its shape was at the limits of computing power of the day and was the reason why it had a 2-d "faceted" shape. The later B-2 bomber benefited from improved computing power thus allowing the 3-d VLO designs to be employed. It became operational October 1983, and was first retired in 2007 and some airframes are used for training to this day. 2 plus decades of service using such technology is far from "so early" imo.

@VersusARCH

2 жыл бұрын

It was an overambitious goal to try to go "full stealth" rather than just reduced RCS (hard to pinpoint at long range and more difficult for targeting radar to maintain lock, while retaining radar of your own).

Of course, this plane could dog fight it would not really have to. In theory Because It could easily sneak up to any plane and fire a missile. And use A main gun if it had to. Designating this craft as a bomber is a really smart idea. Imagination can go very far than that designation though

F117 maneuverability seems good enough. At least it had that going for it.

how much would this cost just to buy? thinking ill get one after i retire

with a couple of modifications a F-117 could at least shoot down larger craft, but it's design is really not suited for shooting down other fighters, but wiht sufficent air support from actual Fighters it could be used to shoot down larger cargo, craft and Awacs aircraft.

If an AIM 9 could be mounted and deployed then it would be purely down to the value of the assets as to whether it was a viable strategy because you're looking at a high probability that it's a suicide mission. Is a russian AWACs plane worth more than an F117? Probably not. However, if the trade opens up access to a more high value target (ie. allows a bombing run on an airfield or production facility) and significantly reduces the potential losses of taking on the mission then perhaps it might be considered but that's a fairly niche scenario. Taking out a passenger plane full of military commanders or other high value political targets might also be worth the exchange but again it would need to be the perfect storm of intelligence gathering and bad decision making by the opposition to be viable.

What missile, though? The AIM9 is rail launched. It can't be launched without a trapeze if carried internally.

Other examples of using the F for an attack aircraft are. The F 111, and the F 105.

I often wondered if the US considered, or still considered, selling used F-117 to friendly NATO or allied forces like in Asia so they could maintain an affordable, stealth capability to complement, or as a bridge to, the arrival of the F-35 or other indigenous stealth aircraft. Today, with the F-22 and F-35 in service, the vast inventory just sits, when they could be put to some good use by are allies sharing our interests.

@WALTERBROADDUS

2 жыл бұрын

F-35'S are being sold to several Nations.

@JorgeGarcia-lw7vc

2 жыл бұрын

@@WALTERBROADDUS I know, thanks, yes a few countries already operate F-35s. My comment was about F-117s, why those weren't considered for sale to other nations. Imagine if Sweden operated six F-117s, or if Germany, France, Italy and Poland each had a squadron, cannibalizing over other airframes for spare parts.

@hoghogwild

2 жыл бұрын

The fleet is being demilitarized at a rate of 4 per year., since 2016 IIRC. As of 2016 there were about 50 airframes with a handful being flown. These aircraft were operated under radio silence, their utility as is was limited. Whereas F-35's utility is massive.

The first stealth aircraft was actually the german h18 from WWII but it was only ever a concept. And the f117 was retired in 2008.

I can't believe it came out in the 80s. Still looks like it's from 20 years in the future

It seems to have a good role rate, and maneuverability. If it has a tool for the job...sure, why not? ...but with no gun and no air to air missiles? Not so much.

Well it did get quick agile maneuver missiles on acecombat 6 so idk

What is the V in V-22 for?

@thopar

2 жыл бұрын

Vertical

2 things, it did launch an AIM 9, but it burned the RAM. Unfortunately this actions ruined its stealth. Also, we reached our bomber limits, so we called the plane a fighter. Plus, it Wes painted black instead of pastels th attract pilot's.

Bruh I used to live in Madera California fresno is like 15 mins away from there

So you're saying Tom Clancy was correct in Red Storm Rising when he sent the "F-19" against Soviet AWACs. You have read Red Storm Rising, young un?

@rickmoreau3419

2 жыл бұрын

Also in Debt of Honor he uses the Comanche stealth helicopter for that very mission: shooting down AWACS aircraft.

IF THOSE CAN, GO FOR IT

Once the bay doors close, the SAM could still have weapon guiding lock?? I don't think the pilot kept the doors open more than 15-20 seconds , or did he??

Was this video reuploaded? I could’ve sworn this video was posted a few days ago…

The FitnessGram Pacer Test is a multistage aerobic capacity test that progressively gets more difficult as it continues. The 20 meter pacer test will begin in 30 seconds. Line up at the start. The running speed starts slowly, but gets faster each minute after you hear this signal. [beep] A single lap should be completed each time you hear this sound. [ding] Remember to run in a straight line, and run as long as possible. The second time you fail to complete a lap before the sound, your test is over. The test will begin on the word start. On your mark, get ready, start.

I have heard that the Nighthawk had been seen in the skies again, it's probably for some kind of testing or R&D.

It could indeed carry air-to-air missiles and guns if the mission needed it. The nighthawks secondary role was actually to intercept Russian AWACS aircraft in Russian airspace.

@Truthbomb918

2 жыл бұрын

No it could not, it had a bomb Bay only. Aircraft wasn't designed to have air to air weapons and never had a cannon unless u can't show me a link to what u said

@nextgen89

2 жыл бұрын

@@Truthbomb918 I think what he and others are trying to say, is that air to air capability was technically a part of it's intended mission set whether or not we have proof of it actually happening. 50%+ of this plane is STILL classified. You can reasonably infer that we know probably 20% or less of the actual missions it undertook because of it's classification. It being a black project, and if you understand how those things go... Theres numerous times in history where things were designed or created for one off specific missions. Who is to say a retractable cannon couldn't be created and placed inside one of the 2 bomb bays? Who is to say they couldn't have made a firing mechanism for IR missiles out of the bomb bays? Who is to say our military didn't or doesn't have some other sort of "target painting" tech that doesn't rely on radar nor IR? Remember.. this is classified black project stuff. There's more we DONT know, than the things we DO.

@Truthbomb918

2 жыл бұрын

@@nextgen89 retractable cannon from the bomb Bay. Yes a lot isn't know but I'd put my house on a retractable cannon never being something that was planned. Ir missiles need to have the seeker head in the airstream to get a lock. It's either radar or heat, there is no other way to designate an aerial target because the only missiles uses around the world are either radar or heat guided

Maybe again older 1960’s designed light attack aircraft it could “dogfight” but not against anything with a afterburner.

Did the nighthawk not have any passive sensors?

@sidv4615

2 жыл бұрын

nope. No RWR or anything